Jump to content

Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Epilepsy?

I'm a bit worried about Image:Parrot rgb3.gif. I think it could give someone a fit, so a slower version would be better -- maybe with a link to the existing version, together with a warning? --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Good, looks fine to me. This "new" display modes do flicker a lot, even on a TV, so the GIFs really simulate the effect (50Hz flicker). I think a good solution is really to just keep the links. Slower gifs will not simulate the effect and still flicker a lot. This way people can see the simulated effect if they can and healht issues are prevented. Since I created and put the images here on the first place, I apologise for some possible inconvenience.
Sorry, I wasn't clear — the idea of using a slower version wasn't to simulate the effect, only to illustrate how the effect works. I should really have said "one or two frames per second". --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shock Megademo

User:Pak21 removed this sentence, citing Shock Megademo as a counter-example:

However, the Spectrum's processor is not fast enough to write to an entire row of attribute bytes in one scanline, so 8x1 attributes can only be achieved over half of the screen width.

Shock Megademo does not utilise 8x1 attributes. It uses 8x2 attributes on top of alternating paper and ink lines to achieve a different colour on each line; one colour per line equals two colours per 8x2 cell. Don't know if it's worth mentioning this particular example in the paragraph about 8x2... Slovakia 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that 8x1 mode could cover half of the screen width. For a 3.5MHz machine, one TV scanline takes 224 CPU clock periods (i.e. 64us) which is enough to change the color attributes for only 14 character blocks (112 pixels) using 14 LDI instructions (one of the quickest ways of copying blocks of memory) without adjusting the pointers back to the start of the hicolor zone (each execution of an LDI intruction takes 16 clock periods). In fact, David Webb propsed in "Advanced spectrum machine language" ([1]) a hicolour mode with a width of only 8 characters (64 pixels). I was able to extend this width to 11 or 12 character blocks (long time since then) by lengthening the code but this would be OR since I don't have anything published. However, if you'd use a single attribute byte per scanline, then yes, you could extend the hicolour zone to half of the screen width (or maybe more - again, David Webb has a full-screen horizon generator that changes the attributes for some 22 characters) but that wouldn't count anymore as 8x1 attributes.89.137.246.65 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Apass

I rechecked the timmings and the Z80 instruction set and I guess, with enough RAM available during execution, it could be possible to change the attributes for about half a screen witdh on each scan line. For instance, a combination of LD HL,(Buffer); LD (ATT),HL; will take 26 t-states for 2 attributes, allowing for 16 bytes replaced during a scanline (and a timming sequence like 4 NOPs on each scanline) - however, the RAM needed for this would be quite large - 16 attribute bytes/scanline x 192 pixel rows x (1 byte/attribute in the Buffer zone + 3 bytes for LD HL,(Buffer) + 3 bytes for LD (ATT),HL) + 192*4 bytes for timing on each line, will make some 22272 bytes needed. Well, it could be done better than this using some tricks, but that's a new project for me :)89.137.246.65 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Apass
I don't know what was wrong with me the other day... the instruction sequence would be, of course, LD HL,Attribute; LD (ATT),HL. And the amount of RAM would be 8x192x(3+3)+192x4=9984 bytes. I was off by a factor of 2.2 - I forgot that each intruction pair deals with two attributes, so only 8 pairs are needed to fill the 16 bytes per line and that each instruction contains all the attribute data needed, so the attribute table is not necessary...89.137.246.65 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Apass

About the color palette section and the size of the thumbnails

Hello. I am the original writer of the section Color palette in the List of palettes article, ZX Spectrum section. I saw you have copy&pasted the section literally. I think that wikipedians must not to "copy-paste" between us! One of two: or the technical details must keep in this page and the color table keep in the palettes article with a link to the yours, or you should to put a simple paragraph (with your image, it's OK) and a link to the ZX Spectrum section of the "List of palettes" article.

Also, I think that the size you have put the sample thumbnails blurs the images (at least, in my PC) and the original effect is lost. A casual reader (and even an proffesional) will not note any difference between them. I think it's better to keep them at their original 256-width size.Ricardo Cancho Niemietz 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the copy. Yes, it's a duplication and for me just some details and a link the Spectrum section on the palettes article is a good solution. Just like on other articles were you have "See main article". So that's fine for me.

As for the image size, good point. I formated the article for good layout out of experience. If the images are larger, someone will just edit and change their size. I've see this happen and really I don't have to time do keep reverting edits :-) Let me see if I can format this with 100% images and a good layout. Thanks for your input, I'll see to it when I have time if no one else does it first. Also, congratulations for the good job on the pallettes article ;-)Ricnun 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the image sizes, let's hope nobody reverts them as this is pretty important. Moroz1999 (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar error near start of "ULAplus" section

"If only used to slight modify" does not make sense. I'd change it myself but I'm not completely sure it should be changed to "slightly" or if it's trying to say something else.

It means "if changes to the original hardware palette colours are slight". With ULAplus you can redefine the hardware palette completely. For example, you can change Black to Orange. Viewing such graphics on original hardware would look bad, as the displayed colour wouldn't match in any way. But small changes, for example Yellow to Orange, or Blue to Teal, would still look good on original hardware. The displayed colours wouldn't be too far off. Feel free to make the original sentence clearer! 4throck (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Demo scene

This information needs to be reviewed by someone who knows the ZX demo scene or has used any of these modes. I myself only have access to some image converters and emulators, and couldn't get much more information than what's here.

It would be good to sort out the proper names and machines on which they are avaliable as software or hardware supported modes.

Also, a list of graphic editors for each mode would be nice, along with some software that showcases its use. --Ricnun 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

exact RGB values for palette.

The exact RGB values for the palette has been taken from the topic on ZX.PK.RU forum, where they have appeared as a result of a thorough discussion, hardware test and mathematic calculations. original topic (in russian)[2]

The mostly agreed result is on the 13th page (Unreal Speccy palette format):

pulsar=00,76,CD,E9,FF,9F:FF,00,00;00,FF,00;00,00,FF

Moroz1999 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed sections

While I'm not a great expert on the ZX Spectrum, nor a longtime participant on this talk page, it seems somewhat unorthodox to remove topical content from a talk page altogether (unless it consists of, say, insults or BLP violations or the like). Typically, people use the {{cot}}/{{cob}} (or {{hat}}/{{hab}}) templates. That way, even if the conversation is not germane to the article's talk page (and even if it's forced to stop), people are still able to see what was said, and by who, and they don't have to dig through page histories to figure out what the situation was. Is that not possible here? jp×g🗯️ 10:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I got a ZX Spectrum for Christmas 1983 and learned how to program on it. That said, if I was going to look at technical information about the screen buffer, I wouldn't think of going to Wikipedia. The article title is misleading, giving the reader the impression that the ZX Spectrum has some sort of equivalent to INT 10 to switch between various resolutions and colour depths. In fact, there is only one graphic mode, and doing anything else involves extensive jiggery-pokery (to use a technical term :-D) by flipping the right bits on the frame buffer at the right time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ritchie333, thank you for your thoughts. What you have pointed out is possibly true, but it is unrelated to the topic "Removed sections". I would appreciate it if everyone stays on the topic. Z80Spectrum (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I am ready to continue this conversation.
As a reminder, User:Chaheel Riens has removed some topics (mostly written by me) from this talk page (tp-content) on 8 January. User:Chaheel Riens has made objections that the removed tp-content violates at least WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO. As a part of a counter-argument, I mentioned that WP:CALC applies here.
Apparently, the main problem is in interpretation of all those policies, where different editors interpret the mentioned policies very differently. All those policies are likely vague, ambiguous, and insufficiently accurate (IMO).
Both parties agree that this dispute essentially involves article content. The contended parts of the article are almost all the images in the article and the color-table.
The talk page topics removed by Chaheel Riens are:
* How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output,
* Article split suggestion,
* Too bright 'dim' RGB values suddenly – “PAL gamma”? (most parts).
Related DRN discussion is here.
If we can't get a solution here, I'm likely going to open an WP:ANI case (again). I would prefer if we can get some sort of agreement or compromise this time.
I would like all participants who have commented here or who were previously involved to make another comment here. Z80Spectrum (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That is a good objection, but note: any images in the article must be some kind of "simulation", because nobody has PAL TVs at home today to take a photograph of the output and post it to the article. Pixel-perfect output is also a kind of simulation, and quite an unfaithful one. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Simulated images aren't the problem (though no working PAL TVs is a questionable statement). It needs to be a reliable source doing the simulation and not Wikipedia editors. VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree 100%. However, on which basis do you find pixel-perfect graphics to be a simulation by a "reliable source", while PAL-simulation is by unreliable source? I find both of those simulations equally reliable, equally WP:OR, equally WP:SYNTH, equally WP:CALC, etc.
The only difference between them is: one is more faithful to the original, the other much less so. Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand which two things you are comparing. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm comparing the methods of producing the 3 images in the Standard mode gallery, to methods of producing other images in the article.
The last steps of PAL-simulation method are described in the removed tp-content topic: How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output. The methods used to produce other images are described nowhere (but I'm guessing they are based on a few image conversion programs like BMP2SCR). Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Whether the method is described on the talk page or not is not relevant. We should be using real images of the graphics, simulations already published in a reliable source, or none at all. VQuakr (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
What you described doesn't exist. You are setting the standard too high.
Being consistent is fine with me, so one possible solution is to remove ALL images from this article, and also all images in all other articles on 80's microcomputers. Quite drastic, I'm afraid.
How do you know which method is being used to produce any image on Wikipedia, if it is not described on a talk page? Wikipedia does alow users to produce images, to upload "own work". Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not setting any standard, I am describing the standards that exist already. If simulated images of this systems' performance don't exist then we shouldn't be the first to generate them. We're talking about this article, so let's not do whataboutisms, ok? The policy on original images is in the same policy as WP:SYNTH: WP:IMAGEOR. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does allow users to produce and upload images, and such is the accepted standard on Wikipedia regarding graphics of old microcomputers. So, we SHOULD generate the images.
WP:WHATABOUT says: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to this "accepted standard" and where its acceptability under WP:SYNTH has already been discussed? Examples of it existing is not a standard, that just means it's a low-visibility page that flew under the radar for a while. WP:WHATABOUT is part of an essay on deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The interpretation of WP:IMAGEOR, and your other objections are issues for another topic.
However, we cannot discuss any of those if the methods of generating original images in question are unknown or undescribed. That's the reason why the removed tp-content topics should be restored, especially How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Seems like we're going in circles. They're mooted by the synthesis problem. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
We are not going in circles.
The conclusion is clear: in order to discuss applications of Wikipedia policies on user-generated images, the methods for generating those images should be describend on a talk page. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It might be helpful to describe the steps of processing that were done to an image on the image description page. That's a better location IMHO since then it's associated with the image wherever it may be used, not with a specific article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion about the preferred and allowed methods of image generation must be on the article talk page.
Unrelated to that, I like your suggestion. I have just added one such description on the Commons Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion about the preferred and allowed methods of image generation must be on the article talk page. I disagree. What makes you think that? VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Without a discussion on the talk page, how can it be determined whether a certain method of image generation is allowed and/or preferred? Editors must be allowed to post their arguments. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious that we can't use the images per WP:SYNTH. The images could be used anywhere, which is why discussion on a particular article talk page doesn't make much sense to me. If discussion is needed, how about WP:ORN instead? VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Whether something is "obvious" is just an opinion.
My understanding is that decisions on Wikipedia are made by WP:CONSENSUS, which heavily relies on discussions on the associated talk page.
The discussion must be on the article talk page, because it is a discussion about the allowed and preferred methods of image generation for that specific article. Some other article might prefer other methods of image generation. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It's an informed opinion based on experience though. Your understanding of consensus is incomplete. Consensus happens in many forums, not limited to article talk pages. In this case, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on any particular talk page can't override a policy like WP:SYNTH, so it makes sense to discuss at a centralized location such as the noticeboard I suggested. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
What you are asking is that me and everyone else should just trust your subjective judgment, without any discussions.
There must be a discussion on the article talk page to provide arguments related to any Wikipedia policies that you desire to invoke. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Policies apply whether they are "invoked" or not. As near as I can tell, the rule that the discussion must occur on this talk page and nowhere else is entirely of your own making. VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The main purpose of talk pages is discussing the article contents (including images). You are the one who seem to be proposing an extraordinary claim (of not allowing here my discussion about article contents), so you should defend your claim, not postulate it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
So, please, state your arguments now, clearly: why shouldn't my discussion about article contents (i.e. How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output) be allowed on this talk page? Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I've already explained the problem, clearly and repeatedly. And despite your claim that I'm the only one to be raising the concern, the same issue has already been raised by Escape Orbit, Chaheel Riens, and Remsense elsewhere on this page. At some point it becomes a WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation. What you're proposing isn't related to article content because it isn't usable in the article. It still is available in the talk page history, as you linked, so you can copy it to your blog or personal website or wherever you care to publish/work on it. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You have so far (heavily) attacked my position and asked for explanations, and we exchanged some arguments and opinions. That is fine, but it is too confusing and broken up to be useful. It was a long discussion. Now is the time to CLARIFY.
I'm asking you to summarize your argument, so that we can discuss it more clearly.
Please, write your summary that provides an answer to my question:
Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
[3]. I haven't "attacked" anything, heavily or otherwise. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Look, @VQuakr, I asked you a simple question that is the central issue of this topic. I don't see your answer yet. If you don't answer, it will be impossible to continue this discussion with you.
In the answer to my question you should clearly state all the most relevant Wikipedia policies that you think are applicable.
Here is my question again:
Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:LISTEN. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Heya, @Z80Spectrum, I saw your post on the Teahouse. Just did a quick read through of this issue and the original post in question. Admittedly, both primary parties in this have been less than stellar in tone but VQuakr is correct. The post in contention does seem to fall under WP:NOTGUIDE. It may be a bit roundabout but your point could be better done by noting your success in finding a way to complete the desired task and then linking out of the realm of articles and their talk pages.
Talk pages should generally be in regards to content of the article and debate thereof, not strategies or guides for fabrication of content.
There are places, even within Wikipedia, where this could be placed. Say, on a subpage of your user profile. Then, in a content based debate or proposal you can link to the guide.
Simply put, guides and tutorials do not belong on Wikipedia article and talk pages. But they do have their role elsewhere. If anyone in this or out of it disagrees with me or has questions I'm happy to answer them. Admittedly, I am myself a fairly new Wikipedian, but this issue does fall under WP:NOTGUIDE so far as I can tell. Dionysius Millertalk 00:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dionysius Miller I tend to agree. As an administrator who has tried (in the limited time available to them) to wade through this battleground talk page and other posts from @Z80Spectrum, my view is that:
a) it was wrong for another editor to delete a proposal to split or merge an article. That should be reinstated and discussed (preferably without the wall of words with Z80Spectrum and others seem to manage to create, nor the accusations of liars and scammers I've seen from them elsewhere).
b) Although I know little about computer graphics, I believe another editor was quite right in removing all Z80Spectrum's lengthy discussion and personal research from the talk page. Wikipedia is not a 'how to do it' platform. It looks like an old thread from 2021 got answered at huge length by Z80 and an IP, with detailed WP:OR, and this strayed well into WP:NOTFORUM territory. If Z80 believed it is relevant to any discussion here on Wikipedia, as opposed to on Commons, then they could always put it in one of their user sandbox pages and simply link to it. That would have avoided a lot of kerfuffle and hot air that they have so successfully managed to generate or contribute to.
c) there are 13 'citation needed' templates in that article. I suggest Z80 would be better off addressing finding sources to support existing content, rather than going down a rabbit hole of seemingly highly technical personal investigation and research which is out of scope of this Project.
d) {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates sometimes have their uses on talk pages, too, though not to collapse detailed investigative chit-chat which is better off being kept to other more specialised, dedicated forums, and not posted on Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
All the above seems reasonable. @Z80Spectrum: do you wish to copy/paste the split proposal into a new section on this page? VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly you are referring to. I would certainly like my "Article split suggestion" topic re-instantiated on the talk page. That is one less point of contention.
I'm sorry to say, but I won't allow this discussion to be derailed. My question cannot be affected by off-topic opinions of other editors, however influential they are.
In order for this discussion to be fair, you have to stay on topic and formulate the exact objection(s), so that it can be discussed. You can't give 20 fragmented objections, and then require me to assemble it all up.
My question, which is the central point of contention, is:
In the response, please state all the Wikipedia policies that were violated, in your opinion. Then, we can continue the discussion. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Z80Spectrum Try WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Just in case that it isn't clear enough, my reply below to Dionysius Miller is also a reply to you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I will not be involved going forward but the topic you specify violates: WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:OR, and WP:NOTFORUM. Again, feel free to use your userspace to keep your findings and link to them in the future. Dionysius Millertalk 02:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
You all are CONFUSING unrelated issues. That is why I wanted a CLEAR summary. You are all confusing article content with talk page content. The two are not the same. You can't request talk page content to be removed due to policies which apply to articles only.
Talk page content can't be deleted easily, because it would be an attempt to stifle a discussion. Only serious violations of policies warrant talk page content removal. The point of talk pages is to DISCUSS contentious issues, but that can't be done if talk page content is immediately removed by just an allegation of polic violation.
  • WP:NOTGUIDE - is about articles, not talk page content. I quote: "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles", notice the words HOW TO. It is perfectly normal for talk pages to contain how-to's.
  • WP:OR mostly applies to articles. In this case, we should DISCUSS whether WP:OR applies, but that can't be done if my discussion is immediately deleted before it can be discussed.
By the way, @VQuakr main objection was WP:SYNTH. But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor. OK, you don't have much time for everything here, I understand. But, please, be more considerate. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Z80Spectrum Again, I keep saying that I have no intention of continuing to be involved but I feel like a moth staring at a tasty looking lamp. I do apologize, legitimately, if I came across as being overly defensive of VQuakr in my siding with his argument in my initial two responses.
What I will say is that I have now been specifically reading for a solid couple hours into any pertinent policy and notes in addition to what I had done yesterday. I try to avoid walls of text and any form of accusation in keeping with WP:AGF, so do know that I am doing my best with that and truly mean zero offense. I would like to be constructive so do WP:AGF in what I say.
First, I want to cover the issue of the original discussion:
  • While WP:NOTGUIDE is primarily for articles, it can be applied in specific cases elsewhere. In particular, on talk pages. WP:TALK#USE specifies the intended purposes of the talk page. Specifically, the talk page is for discussing validity of claims, collaboratively introducing a new claim, and discussing issues on the article page. The talk page, through a recognition that talk pages are intended to be the discussion of the improvement of articles, should not include a guide to gathering or creating material. WP:NOTGUIDE does, in my view, apply to this situation because of this.
  • WP:TALK#USE is fairly clear that a talk page is specifically and solely used for the improvement of the attached article through a standard set of circumstances. It is, in essence, for resolving content disputes, discussing content additions, discussing source validity, and collaboration on content addition and removal. A step-by-step guide would only fit under "guide on how one can contribute". Here's my main point with this bit: There's a reason you don't see any guides or discussion on how to find sources or images on an article's talk page. This belongs elsewhere.
  • WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. But it does apply to articles, and the talk page has the sole purpose of harboring content which one believes will or ought to end up in the attached article. Given that there is no reasonable idea of your guide actually ending up actively on the article, it does not belong on the article's talk page.
  • Previously in this discussion, WP:IMAGEOR came up. I do not believe that there is any intent to deceive by anyone involved so this should not apply to this specific case. Similarly WP:WHATABOUT is unrelated.
  • User:Z80Spectrum, you brought up early on that this is WP:CALC. I contend that that is not the case as WP:CALC specifically applies to routine equations and simple equation adjacent items. The example given by WP:OR is simple arithmetic and/or conversions, which this case is not.
In total I do agree with the deletion of the talk page content, though I also believe that some prior warning could have helped avoid this.
Second, I want to discuss this debate fundamentally:
  • If you only read one of this section's points, this should probably be that one. WP:AAGF. I am not, and I believe other participants are not, trying to assume bad faith. I do believe that you want what's best for this page, but I do also believe that you think I do not and that specifically User:VQuakr does not. I promise we do.
  • WP:AVOIDYOU is at least very close to being applicable. Note that I have zero intention of expanding this into anything official n'at, but I do want to clarify some of Wikipedia's expectations relating to civility so that when, at some point in the future you have another debate, you can help keep things civil and becoming of a debate as opposed to an argument/shouting match. There have been a couple statements and assertions which are fairly ad hominem namely:
- But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor. OK, you don't have much time for everything here, I understand. But, please, be more considerate. This is an accusation against another user for which you have no way of proving. This falls under WP:AGF and is quite aggressively delivered. I am not your enemy.
- [...] some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such. Then when you were inevitably confronted for this statement for evidence, you responded You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. Calling your opponents in a debate on a volunteer website liars and scammers is extremely ad hominem would constitute a personal attack had you referenced a specific name. Then, after you claimed to have evidence, you refused to show that evidence, thus implying that the claim was exclusively a personal attack.
- Each time someone has tried to mediate or User:VQuakr tried to help in resolution, you stated,I'm sorry to say, but I won't allow this discussion to be derailed. This is a bit analogous to My God there are DOZENS of them!
I'll stop there, I know this look a lot like me saying your the bad guy, but I'm not saying it and you aren't that. Just keep in mind that discussion only works when everyone is civil and the easiest way to initiate civility is to be the one to hold it and pull incivility out of the discussion by sheer determination.
Thank you for your obvious care about the validity of Wikipedia and access to knowledge. Dionysius Millertalk 15:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking at this again, I seem to have failed at the whole concision thing. Dionysius Millertalk 15:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I thank you for your opinion and your effort. I didn't read it all yet, but just quickly skimmed through. I don't get easily offended, so don't worry about that.
I think that this issue is more fundamental and more complicated than you think it is. I would have some serious objections on your line of thoughts. But, it is complicated. So, let's just think about it for a while.
I would also suggest to think of proper venues of action to resolve this dispute. What new discussions should be started, and where, to resolve this issue. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
You can open a discussion somewhere else, or on my talk page, if you wish to discuss the fine points with me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Here is another suggestion.
If you want to get a really good insight of what is actually happening, just re-read the entire "Removed sections" topic on this talk page. It doesn't get long before it all blows up.
While reading it, try to imagine what is in the heads of each of the editors who are debating (me and VQuakr). Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Please stop continually replying to my message, I said the reasons why deletion was warranted in my view and how you can better handle yourself in future debates to avoid things "blowing up". You made a personal attack regarding my character and, in reference to myself and others here, called the group "liars and scammers". Incivility is not ok and ad hominem attacks are never ok. Further I am culturally inclined to strongly react to such accusations and attacks against my own character and the character of other users. But, civility dictates I withhold any drastic response.
Now, you have messaged me three times in three hours. I will not make an assumption as to your goal and will only ask that you please stop messaging me after I made my position clear and my lack of a desire to continue involvement clear. Dionysius Millertalk 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Please sorry, I misunderstood you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course, I was unsure about the exact nature of the misunderstanding until you answered with
"WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:OR, and WP:NOTFORUM". Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Unrelated to article content
Z80Spectrum, I'm still waiting for you to post the evidence you say you have[4] that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such.[5] I feel it would benefit all to see this evidence - especially when it's pertinant to this topic - so the appropriate action can be taken. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to this. In my opinion, it would be a derailment of this discussion. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
You see, here's the problem. You have declared that you believe there to be scammers and liars involved in this discussion. You have also stated that you have evidence to support this claim. If that's true then the integrity of this article - at the very least - is compromised. It would be counter-productive not to complete a statement you made several weeks ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone has just deleted all of my suggestions

I suggest: either bring them back or explain your reasons. In my opinion, my deleted comments were significantly improving the quality of the article.

We can't improve the article if we can't discuss, so the action was quite unfair. 80.80.52.125 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it was you, 4throck?
I think that my suggestions were with the exact purpose of improving the article. So, they should stay. Why wouldn't suggestions for improving the article be appropriate for the talk page about the article? 80.80.52.125 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
What ? I didn't do anything!
Just check the talk page history - your suggestions were deleted by Chaheel Riens. 4throck (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not usually on Wikipedia, so I get confused by the UI.
Anyway, if he does not respond, then I'm reverting back the old talk page.
Chaheel Riens, explain your actions. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
As per my edit summary - while interesting, the vast majority of your posting was in-depth analysis of the graphic capabilities and display. This comes under WP:FORUM and Wikipedia:No original research. There are a number of off-wiki projects that may be more suitable for your research, but here is not one of them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect.
Applying three simple formulas is not "original research", as no publisher would publish it, except maybe a primary school monthly magazine.
It is not "in-depth analysis".
The formulas were all part of published standards (sRGB, PAL), which were linked and referenced in the article.
We, humans are allowed to use logic. Otherwise, we could only be able to copy verbatim sentences from each other.
Furthermore, the images currently part of the article, are, by your own criteria, also original research, as it is using methods of generating images which were not published anywhere nor reviewed by anyone. It just happens that my methods are more precise, because I calculated them based on existing and published and linked standards. So, how is the current situation, which is based on origial research (by your criteria), better than the newly suggested methods, which is by your criteria also original research.
By your criteria, the entire Wikipedia should be completely "stupidified", by only copying, verbatim, the exact values published (on some unverified web pages), and not even allowing people to use simple logic or a calculator for producing more correct values.
Are we allowed to use calcualtors to arrive at at a result which is just a re-interpretation of some values published in valid international standards.
Or are we not even allowed to use calculators?
I judge all your arguments to be invalid.
Therefore, talk page should be reverted. Secondly, since you provided only weak arguments, there s really no need to wait for further replies. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
For example: Many images on Wikipedia are "own work". Are all those images also "original research"? By your criteria, they are. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to explain how to generate more accurate images for the article, using Gimp, in 7 simple steps. How is that "original research"? Which reputable publisher would publish it as "original research"? 80.80.52.239 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, by your own definition you also fall foul of WP:NOTHOWTO. Please don't reinstate your challenged comments, or you'll also be guilty of WP:EDITWAR. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks for WP:EDITWAR, since I'm not a WIkipedia regular, so I dont know abot the rules.
However you are obviously misinterpreting other rules.
The purpose of the talk page is supposed to be for suggestions on improving the article. That's exactly what my comments were doing: they were comments for improving the article.
While they might look like original research at a first glance, they are most certainly not original reasearch (unless the term "original research" has been heavily re-defined by Wikipedia). If we thake the most widespread notion of whas is "original research", then my comments are most certainly not original research.
Also about your newly introduced argument "WP:NOTHOWTO", this is also invalid, at least by my interpretarion, because that argument primarily applies to the ARTICLE pages and not to the TALK pages. I judge that it is normal to provide some How-to's on talk pages, and that many Wikipedia talk pages contain How-tos.
Also, all the about-Wikipedia pages with rules that you are linking are all How-to pages, so Wikipedia would then be in contradiction with itself, by putting on About-Wikipedia page a How-to about how to write Wikipedia. Simple logic. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
More precisely, any How-to stating that How-tos are not allowed anywhere is a contradiction, therefore a lie, because every contradiction is a lie. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I just read the WP:EDITWAR . My understanding is that I have 3 reverts per day, So, I can use one of the allowed reverts. Unfortunately, I don't know how to merge this discussion about deletions with the original talk page, but as soon as I find out, I will revert. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
If I may, I think extensive instructions or demonstrations should be hosted somewhere else. Then, on the talk page, you can put a link to them with a short summary. This allows discussion, and eventual article improvements, preventing extensive work to be lost due to deletion and rule interpretation. Just my 2 cents... 4throck (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, I undestand your argument in the sense that the talk page might become too congested, but that can mostly be sorted out by better organization, excerpts and similar.
It also depends on the exact meaning of "extensive". For example, my quick 7-step Gimp How-to actualy is quite long. But, if you take the essence of it, it is very simple, a child can follow it. It just needs a lot of words to be explained. Either it is such a particular case, or I'm generaly not very concise (or both), but those are minor issues.
I really think that we should improve the quality of Spectrim output images in the article, and I don't know of any shorter method to explain how to do it. There is no much shorter method, it is a list of steps, and each step needs to be explained, and that takes a lot of words, no matter how simple the steps.
I have to use the talk pages, I cannot explain things by telepathy. I am not affiliated with any people having web-sites about Spectrum, so I have no choice but to write here, if my contributions are desired.
It would have been probably easier if I was to register at Wikipedia and log in and just upload the images. Then you would be missing documentation about how those images were produced, why they are of better quality, etc. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
In fact, I cannot upload the images, because I'm missing tools to apply attribute-cell rules. So, I need assistance from other users who use those tools, so that we can jointly produce better images. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
By the way, if you happen to know some Spectrum web page that would publish my ramblings, please suggest it. I have nothing against writing some articles about Speccy. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that we let my suggestions stay on the talk page for a few months, so that other contributors have a chance to read them.
Then someone who has the skills for it, should produce a few short excerpts of most important parts, and the rest should be removed, and a link should be added to the full text in history, so that people who want can read it in entirety.
The suggestion should most certainly not just be tossed away. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Correction: The suggestions should most certainly not just be tossed away. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I should also mention that I already have a few more (short) suggestions to add to the original suggestions. But, those are just some small additional improvements, clarifications, etc. But, they should be added for the time being, and perhaps later they should be removed. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Or they should be fused all together in an excerpt. The problem is that I don't know how to edit the "talk page", and whether I'm allowed to edit it, so I just resort to adding additional replies. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
How can you get any experts on your pages? When the expert is willing to contribute, you are going to immediately accuse him of "original research". Quite off-putting, I should say. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, I haven't noticed any rules about applying "logic", "reason" and "mathematics", as being more valuable and more reliable than any published research ever. Is "the reason" and "reasoning" allowed on Wikipedia, or is Wikipedia becomming just a copy-machine of other web pages? 80.80.52.239 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
It appears that Wikipedia is becomming some kind of socio-political compromise about everything. It is on a direction away from truth, logic, reason and mathemethics, and towards a socio-political compromise that is tolerable to everyone, no matter how incorrect and wrong it is.
So, most controversial articles are of the form: some authority said that [ref], but another authority said this [ref], but this reputable source or web page added this [ref]. And, on the talk page, the majority of most persistent users tolerated all those three, and voted for other "opinions" to be removed.
Unfortunately, such methods are not methods of truth and science, because science ultimately depends on mathenatic, logic and reason, above anything else, and even above the published/unpublished distinction. I mean, there are tons of crap scientific magazines that will publish almost anything. Like scientific yellow press. Just google "culturology".
How about using a calculator? And, how about actually using and applying the rule of non-contradiction? How about other rules of classical logic, how about using the natural numbers? Is that allowed in articles, or not? 80.80.52.239 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
And, of course, how about actually defining what constitutes "original research". For example: original research is any writing that, if it is plausible, would easily find a reputable publisher to publish it. Of course, as no reputable publisher would publish trivialities, by that definition, "original research" cannot consist only of trivialities. And, that's the most widespread meaning of "original research".
If there is a lack of definition of what constitutes "original research", then editors are going to apply it in double-standard and biased ways, not beceuse they are bad people, but because that's what people do naturally.
But I'm getting distracted because not only were my suggestions NOT original research, they were suggestions for the improvement of the article. Your very rule WP:NOTFORUM states positively about such writings:
"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles;..."
My suggestions were solely, and in entirety, for the improvement of the article. They were long, yes, they used logic, mathematics and reason, yes, but they satisfied the essential purpose of the talk page. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I have just figured out that whatever your standard of "original research" is, it is outrageous:
- I didn't yet change the article by uploading the new images, I just posted suggestions on the talk page
- I didn't change a controversial article
- I didn't change a popular article, just some off-topics stuff
If the stadards that Wikipedia is using are commonly being interpreted in the manner as [6] is interpreting them, then Wikipedia is already way off the roads of science and truth, and much into politics and common journalism. Because methods of socio-political compromise are methods of politics and journalism, not of science and truth. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Now I'm interested not in any particular person't opinion on this tiny dispute, but on a more general view of such disputes.
So, I would prefer this question to be raised to "Dispute resolution noticeboard/request". 80.80.52.239 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure - here's the link you need: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, and here's the guide to help you decide which specific route you want to take: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Guide. In general you should ping editors when following up these processes, so I'll wait to see where you go and pick it up from there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my preferred dispute resolution "Dispute resolution noticeboard/request" states that there should first be some discussion on the talk page. You have posted only 2 messages so far, so that's not really "discussion". So, I'm waiting for your further counter-arguments before going to dispute resolution. I think that I shouldn't go to the dispute resolution on the first day of the dispute. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary of the discussion so far

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.52.239 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's do a summary:
On 8th january, Chaheel Riens reverted ALL my additions to the talk page, in one single revert.
The latest addition of mine [7] was an instruction for authors of the article, about how to increase the quality of the images in the article. It was posted that day, and it seems to be the trigger for reversion.
In relation to that, Chaheel Riens argued that I shouldn't post How-tos, while I counter-argued that How-tos are everywhere on Wikipedia talk pages, including various how-tos about how to write on Wikipedia. I claim that how-tos on talk pages are essential for the authors of articles to coordinate their efforts, and that a distinction should be made between how-tos in articles and how-tos in talk pages.
The other reverts include my suggestion to split the article in two [8].
Also reverted was my documented computation of color conversion of ZX Spectrum palette into sRGB [9], where I used various valid and accepted international standards to compute the sRGB values of ZX Spectrum palette. My original post are quite long, because I wasn't sure, at first, what exactly to do, but in the end I arrived at virtually identical results by two different methods, and those values are close to the values commonly accepted in ZX Spectrum community.
To this, Chaheel Riens argued that I was posting original research, to which I counter-argued that my computations are too trivial to be considered "original research", by any widespread meaning of that phrase, but also by a very logical definition of "original research" that I provided.
My final argument is that my additions are in accordance with the intended purpose of talk pages, where the WP:NOTFORUM explicitely states:
"...bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles;..." 80.80.52.239 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I stand by my previous rationales - the posts fall into WP:FORUM, WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO grounds. IP even agrees that their comments are OR, albeit probably without realising what they're saying: my computations are too trivial to be considered "original research" - my emphasis. Also WP:OTHERCONTENT with regard to the claim that there are how-to guides on other articles, thus making this one acceptable. There is so much posted by the IP that it also meets WP:TLDR - even the summary is 2,300 characters of text. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
All allegations are invalid.
- It is not WP:FORUM, because the posts were obviously intended for the purpose of coordinating efforts of multiple authors.
- It is not WP:OR, because it is too trivial to be considered "original research". If such strict criteria for WP:OR were used, than all the images on Wikipedia which are tagged as "own work" would also fall into WP:OR, and should all be deleted. The issue here is that the accuser refuses to provide a clear and plausible definition of what constitutes "original research", uses an uncommon criteria for it, and ignores the proposed definition. Then the accuser employs the resulting vagueness to apply the rule in an arbitrary fashion, and with a double-standard [10]. Also used was the fallacy of Kafkatrapping, where the accuser ignores the essence of counter-arguments, and instead uses an irrelevant fact to repeat the allegations.
- The policy of WP:NOTHOWTO applies only to articles, and not to talk pages. Other Wikipedia talk pages usually and normally contain numerous how-tos, and I have already provided examples for that. Wikipedia explicitly states that talk pages "exist solely to discuss HOW TO improve articles"; notice the words "how to".
- It's not WP:TLDR - It's easy for the accuser to post a lot of vague allegations by just posting links to Wikipedia policies without explaining any specifics or details, while I have to explain why each of them has been incorrectly applied. I also had to explain the timeline of events in the summary, so that it would make sense, and that takes many words. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The WP:OR point alone needs to be addressed:

It is not WP:OR, because it is too trivial to be considered "original research". If such strict criteria for WP:OR were used, than all the images on Wikipedia which are tagged as "own work" would also fall into WP:OR, and should all be deleted.

This is not correct. You would know this if you read the policy in question, specifically the first paragraph of the "What is not original research" section. Some trivial calculations are also not considered original research, but the policy refers to calculations are not more complicated than simple, one-off arithmetic (adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age). Your contributions far exceed that: if they cannot be reliably sourced, they are original research for Wikipedia's purposes.
It would be exceedingly helpful to base all your future argument based on what WP:OR or other policy actually says. Please quote it, if you can. Your prose so far is incredibly hard to read, and this is a real practical problem for people, that is why WP:TLDR is invoked. On Wikipedia, you have to deal with the practical limits of others' time and patience.
It's potentially a faux pas to suggest that IP users create an account, but if I were in your situation, I would suggest you do so, and put all this information on a page in your userspace, such that it can be seen and potentially used to improve the article, but doesn't crowd the talk page. Remsense留 07:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
So, Wikipedia needed to provide special instructions that exempt "own work" images from WP:OR ... I'll leave that for another discussion.
In contrary to your interpretation, WP:CALC doesn't claim that ONLY basic arithmetic is allowed, it just says that it is allowed.
The first sentence of WP:CALC states: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct". Well, that sentence fully supports my side of the argument; it is exactly what I have been claiming.
"Your prose so far is incredibly hard to read" - I think I'm writing perfectly clear. The true issue is that you have all the experience of similar cases, so you can be concise, while I'm new to Wikipedia, so it takes more words for me to explain myself. That's unfair discrimination.
Anyway, I may say "sorry about my hard-to read prose", but in reality, I'm unable to do anything about it. I'm not a native English speker, and I'm writing as good as I can. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding WP:OI: The content within images (e.g. the political boundaries represented in maps) still need to have a reliable source, but they may be user-generated. It's the direct equivalent of writing sourced prose, but in another medium.
I agree, it is difficult to be concise: I am just giving you advice to guide your future discussion so that you may be better understood and we are better able to help you. I apologize if I came off overly critical. Remsense留 08:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, no problem, I can take some heat.
Anyway, we are down to a single issue: How to interpret WP:CALC ?
Also, I would like the "disputed article" template to stay on the top of the article. I tried to revert your revert, but someone else reverted it back.
My rationale in the Edit Summary was:
"The issues on the talk page have direct ramifications on the content of the article. While, technically, the issue was raised on the talk page, the data in the article is directly based on the disputed issues." 80.80.52.64 (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I also think that the accuser's arguments are now taking the form of the fallacy of "Proof by assertion" [11]. This fallacy consists of repeatedly asserting that an argument is true, while ignoring and not responding to arguments that the other side is making.
The basic principle of discussions and debates is that the arguments of the other side must be addressed, not ignored.
The fallacy of "Proof by assertion" can be easily recognized by determining which side is not responding to the arguments of the other side, i.e. which side is refusing to argue, and instead is just repeating the old arguments. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I skipped over the WP:OTHERCONTENT allegation. This allegations has been compleely misinterpreted by the accuser. The essence of my argument is that WP:HOWTO applies (or should apply) to articles, not to talk pages (while the accuser is ignoring the argument and using the word "article" instead of "talk page"), and I provided a counter-example of a page "How to write on Wikipedia". This has nothing to do with WP:OTHERCONTENT, so this is a fallacy of Red Herring [12]. 80.80.52.239 (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel there's nothing more for me to add, anything else will just be reiteration of my previous edits with slight wording changes. Take this to DRN - as you originally stated you would - because I stand by my original rationales, and nothing in the wall of text has persuaded me otherwise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is my view: you last message is a reiteration of the "proof by assertion" fallacy [13]. If you have "nothing more to add", but you haven't addressed my counter-arguments, then you automatically lose "the debate" on all the points related to the arguments not addressed.
You can't just keep repeating "I have made my arguments", because that is the said fallacy of "proof by assertion".
Either you address my arguments, or you lose; in which case, you should just let me and 4throck improve the article; we had quite a fine cooperation before you intervened.
In fact, I don't quite understand the following: if you have nothing more to add, why are you even creating all this trouble for me, regarding this irrelevant, non-popular article. Why do you keep insisting that you are right, when you can't even make counter-arguments?
You can't just keep repeating the same arguments, without addressing the counter-arguments, because that is simply not considered a good and fair discussion. There can't be a good discussion if one side is blind to the arguments of the other side, because that is not a discussion, it is a monologue. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
While nothing you said is wrong strictly speaking, could I please ask that you be a bit more patient with your fellow editors? Please assume good faith: everyone is just trying to improve the encyclopedia. However, while editors may have investment in an article, it is generally not acceptable to act as if one has ownership over an article, even if it is of a niche or personal subject matter. you should just let me and 4throck improve the article; we had quite a fine cooperation before you intervened is a pretty canonical example of WP:OWN-adjacent rhetoric. While consensus is built based on the strength of arguments, no one ever has a right to tell someone to not "intervene" in a discussion.
I would reiterate my suggestion to perhaps create an account for the purposes of organizing your thoughts and research. This is the last time I'll mention the idea though, I don't want to be pushy.
Moreover, I still want to potentially contest the WP:CALC issue. Do all of the figures used in your work so far (i.e. the work that was removed from this page) come from RS—manuals, whitepapers, etc.? I do understand all of the calculations are not rocket science, but I would appreciate if you could demonstrate a direct chain where no OR accidentally leaks in from your personal expertise without a citation. Would that be a reasonable request? Remsense留 11:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I replied below to a wrong post, I hope that you can figure out the actual order of replies. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to comment on the first half...
I didn't tell Chaheel Riens not to intervene, my question was, why is he intervening? I would expect other editors to realize that @4throck and me have more expertise on the subject than most others, and that the two of us have alredy considered many issues, methodological options and possible complaints.
To me, it looks like Chaheel Riens's changes are an abrupt step back, and that he acted (perhaps in good faith), but too quickly and too excessively. That's why he should have consulted with us first, which he didn't do. Z80Spectrum (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is a counter-argument. The WP:CALC is in question, how to interpret it. I would also like to know what others think, I don't necessarily have to "win" the debate, although a bad interpretaion of WP:CALC will definitively ruin my view of Wikipedia in general.
So, who should we call, what expert, so that he can, perhaps, interpret WP:CALC ; how does it apply in this case? I also suggest that he should know something about sRGB and PAL standards, and color conversion. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The example given for a relative standard is mathematical articles, where significantly more complex deductions and derivations maybe considered "basic". While this is a technical article, it concerns real world hardware, not merely abstract concepts, everything except the application of the formulae themselves absolutely needs to be sourced: meaning,
  1. the applicability of the formulae,
  2. the base figures calculations are done on, and
  3. any real-world results that are meant to reflect the calculations.

Zooming out, reading over your PAL gamma approximation contributions, you specifically invoke measuring the outputted spectra of a Spectrum's signal with a colorimeter. This is squarely WP:original research, per point #2 above. This information is not verifiable for readers, as the ultimate source is your colorimeter. Some whitepaper or other reliable source that reflects these values would be required at a bare minimum. Remsense留 11:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
OK. Interesting points.
The values as accurate as the ones given by a calibrated colorimeter are:
1. out-of-reach for this kind of topic, the issue is too niche.
2. way above the standards of other similar articles. Take any Wikipedia article on 80's micro-computers, noone has good values given by a colorimeter. They are all using pure theory to compute the colors.
3. not applicable: there were many variations in the production hardware, variations in TV sets of the era, imperfections, etc.
So, the common way to get to the correct sRGB values is by theory, not by a colorimeter. I would love to have the ZX Spectrum's output signal measured by a colorimeter or oscilloscope, but I don't have that data. Also, how many ZX Spectrum's need to be tested, since hardware variations were significant? And how may different TV sets should be tested? The colorimeter doesn't even give you the most correct results.
An international standard (PAL BT.470) is relevant here, because the PAL standard allows us to compute the values for an "ideal" TV set.
Since readers of the article need at least some approximation of color palette, that is what most articles on 80's micro-computers provide.
The previous values in this (ZX graphics) article were computed by the user 4throck. There were complaints (by others, not me at first). Then, he basically admitted that he has no better values and no better sources.
So, I came, and did a more precise computation. This simply improved the accuracy of previously-existing, obviously more-incorrect values. The user 4throck explicitly agreed with my changes. It was two months ago, you can see it all here somewhere [14] (Chaheel Riens removed the whole discussion and the computation, that's why I have to refer to history).
The shortest description of how I computed the new color table is given in the article, in the notes of the color table, here [15].
The article must have a color table (like other micro-computers, same situation), at least an approximation. If we don't know the exact values, we can at least offer good approximations. We can try to make the computation as good as possible. There are no better sources than the documented computation that I provided.
It is the same situation as in [16], except that it claims "there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia". Similarly, there are relatively few good sources on ZX Spectrum's color palette. In such a case, WP:CALC should be relaxed and allowed, in the same way as "own work" images are allowed on Wikipedia. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  1. I feel it's representative for the contested issues overall.
  2. That's not an argument: we should pay more attention to best practices, and strive to write better, more verifiable articles. The policies are there for a reason, verifiability is important, full stop.
  3. That's a big part of my point: due to the variances, it's even more troubling to have the information put forward without a source in the article, as it will often have demonstrable discrepancies with sources, in addition to not being directly sourced.
Remsense留 12:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
About sources:
- to perform the color computation, I used the exactly same sources of data as the ones used in the article prior to my changes. I think we have OK sources for the input values of the color computation (they could be better, could be worse). If someone has better sources, please add them, as I would also love to have more accurate data. I'll immediately redo the entire color computation with more accurate sources, it is not a big problem.
I'll just concentrate on the point 3, as the most relevant one.
The computation by the PAL standard simply gives the most accurate results, better than a colorimeter. With just a colorimeter, a source from one country only measures the TV sets sold in that country.
That's the point of PAL: it is an international standard. We should give priority to PAL standard. PAL is a theoretical standard. In such a case, theory and computations are preferred over a colorimeter. Other articles on micro-computers use the same rationale; nothing controversial there.
Also, I estimate that I have far exceeded the accuracy of computation, when compared to other Wikipedia articles on 80's micro-computers. It is relevant, just see the [WP:OTHERCONTENT], it explicitly mentions when a comparison to other articles is relevant. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I finally decided to take your advice and to create an account on Wikipedia.
So now, I can easily upload better quality images to the ZX Spectrum graphics page. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
So, when this discussion is over and you are all satisfied with my answers, just notify me so that I don't forget to do it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
And, of course, I have some additional arguments about how to interpret WP:CALC in this case, because this is a very particular situation. But, I have already said a lot, so I'll post my further arguments slowly. 80.80.52.64 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Z80Spectrum, you're making an assumption that others will be satisfied with your answers - that may not be the case. Also, as you've now created an account, please use that exclusively, rather than switching between multiple IP addresses and your account. Just keeps things neat and within policy, thanks.
From my perspective, there is no change - nor is this any kind of proof by assertion - there is simply nothing more to be said, as I'm pretty sure that my interpretation of the listed policies support the removal of the text. As I've said - take this to DRN and get an answer there. After all, you originally stated a desire to do exactly that. You can no longer use 3O however, as there has been input from another editor - Remsense. Additionally, I note that you claim support from user 4thRock - that's not quite true. 4thRock agrees with the accuracy of your findings, but now that those findings have been challenged for inclusion says If I may, I think extensive instructions or demonstrations should be hosted somewhere else. That is not "agreement" Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not presently have the time to commit to a DRN discussion, so I kindly request that if this goes there, that I'm not asked to participate. Remsense留 22:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
From my side, I don't really need a DRN. So, your request granted. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
"You can no longer use 3O however" - I don't understand what is "3O".
"4thRock agrees with the accuracy of your findings" - that's an agreement on a certain aspect of what I said. Since Wikipedia values accuracy, it is at least a support of my results and data. He also agreed that I should be allowed to make changes to the article.
Perhaps he doesn't agree that the ENTIRE discussion on the talk page should stay. How much should stay there, and how much should be removed, well, you should ask him about his exact opinion. I also agree with him that some superfluous parts of the discussion should be removed. The problem is that you have removed everything, at once, without asking anyone.
About "nothing more to be said" - I am having quite a good discussion with user Remsense, which proves that there is possibly more to be said and discussed. It would be nice of you if you could take just a slightly more positive stance. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I still don't undesrand a few issues.
First, you can't prove any of your claims anymore. You are just CLAIMING that the talk page was violating Wikipedia policies, but others can have different opinions.
If people agree with me more than with you, we can all together simply revert the talk page. Then you would run out of your 3 reverts per day, and the issue is solved. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Once more, I would appreciate if you assume good faith from Chaheel Riens. You may not be intending it, but your tone is very aggressive, and it is making me dread coming back to this discussion a bit. Assuming good faith from your fellow editors is more important than any other norm on the site, in my opinion. Another misconception I want to correct: Yes, decisions and interpretations of policy are arrived at through consensus, but you are misunderstanding the extent to which this is the case: the policies are in essence the broadest, firmest consensus: as such, local consensus achieved within an article, for example does not override site policy. This is enforced by the community as a whole, up to and including discussions at WP:ANI, where the community's shared understanding of policy is often applied to local situations, and arbitrated by administrators. Remsense留 08:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I just asked what would happen if (something)... , because I don't understand Wikipedia policies and methods. And I still don't understand what "3O" means. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

3O = 3 O(pinion) = Third Opinion = Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion. It's one of the links I advised you to follow up right at the beginning of our conversation. I assumed (wrongly as it turns out) that you'd looked into these, as you said [u]nfortunately, my preferred dispute resolution "Dispute resolution noticeboard/request" states that there should first be some discussion on the talk page which implies you've done some research on the topic.

I've also put a welcome template on your talk page. Note that I've used what's known as a "problem template" - this should not be taken as being antagonistic towards you, but it does contain some links I hope would be useful so you understand a bit more about sources and reliability policies. Given that I've also posted a standard welcome template (and all the links that includes) on your original IP talk page, that should cover a wide range of resources for you to find your feet. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like some expert, or at least someone more interested in the topic than @Chaheel Riens and @Remsense, to join the topic and to provide a more learned opinion. I nominate, and I request the help of @4thRock.
Also, changed my mind, again: I might request a WP:DRN, at any time. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean this next comment with the greatest respect - but is English not your first language? Some of the terms you're using are borderline insulting and (I hope unintentionally) cast aspersions on other editors. To say I would like some expert, or at least someone more interested in the topic than Chaheel Riens and Remsense could be taken as disparaging, and may be interpreted as a personal attack. Remsense has already commented on your tone above, and I feel I have to agree. I note that your IP addresses geolocate to Croatia - and without doubt your English is better than my Croatian (nil) but please be careful of the "lost in translation" effect. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
English is NOT my first language, true.
I meant: you two appear to have many interests in many different things. @Remsense writes a lot on Wikipedia about Unicode, for example. I think it would be beneficial if someone with more expertise on the topic would join in. I don't know why would that be an insult.
Perhaps I have misjudged the two of you, but when I look at your histories, what you do, and what you have said here, I estimate that you are not experts on ZX Spectrum, PAL, or sRGB.
I hope that I am allowed to state that I estimate that the two of you are non-experts on the topic.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Z80Spectrum (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The essential allegation raised is WP:CALC, and how to interpret it in this case. That might require expertise on the topic.
Also, since my other objections were about the standard of discussion here, I would like someone who has expertise in logic, logical fallacies, debate, and the standard of discussion to join in. If I might say, I think that neither @Chaheel Riens nor @Remsense has any expertise on those topics. Z80Spectrum (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong - at least in my case, I cannot speak for Remsense. A glance at the article history for most of the Sinclair range (and indeed most eighties computer & video systems both hardware and software) would have shown that if I do say so myself, I know a fair bit about this particular system. However, and this is the nub of the situation - what I know is not important, because I am not a reliable source. And the same goes for you, which brings us back to Original Research and all that entails. With regard to your request and belief that neither Remsense nor I meet the required standard of discussion - Remsense has been here for 10 years, and I'm two weeks shy of 15 years. You tend to pick up things in that time, even if you try not to. And once again your tone is disparaging, even taking into account it being a second language.
In all honesty you're just making things worse for yourself right now, but - WP:AGF - I think you're doing it with the best intentions. Probably best you make good on your original intention and take this to DR before you accidentally say something really insulting and we all go down the WP:NPA route instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I must say that it is fine to engage in the discussion with me. Unrelated to the arguments here, I appreciate when you post something relevant to the argument. The biggest problem is that you don't post much, you didn't engage much in the discussion. Discussing with a silent oponent can be quite frustating. And, it is especially frustrating if my opponens get quickly offended. I hope that you are not offended. I'm not offended. The nature of every discussion is that there must be a little heat in it, we are all humans.
About your additions to microcomputers: I'm very glad that you have made additions there. I'm not sure that it counts as expertise. In fact, you havent said much at all, except repeating the WP:OR allegation many times. Or, perhaps you are an expert, but this is just an unlucky coincidence where I happened to run into an expert who can't recognize that WP:CALC applies in this case.
Remsense actaully posted more detailed and sensible questions about how WP:CALC relates in this case, then you. Don't be offended, please.
That you and Remsense have been here for 15 years, I have noticed. I have also noticed that IMO, you don't quite follow the rules of logic, debate and the usual standards of discussion. Instead, the conduct here seems to be about quoting a lot of Wikipedia policies.
I'm not complaining about any policy in particular. I'm just a bit surprised about the general conduct, customs, and about what counts as good and appropriate. In my opinion, Wikipedia doesn't get it right. No offense to you personally. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
It is very easy to quote a Wikpedia policy.
However, the real question is: does the policy really apply in a particular situation? Has the policy been interpreted well?
On that account, I say that you and @Remsense know Wikipedia policies well. However, you are not interpreting those policies according to standard rules of logic, and also not according to the universally accepted standards of discussion and debates.
Instead, you are interpreting the policies according to Wikipedia's own standards.
On that account, Wikepedia fails. It's not about the two of you, it is a failure of Wikipedia.
I hope that this clears up my thoughts and any potential misunderstandings. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, I have noticed that @Remsense has been accusing me of "your tone is very aggressive", and also warning me to use WP:GOODFAITH, while, at exactly the same time, his accusation of aggression is not in accordance of WP:GOODFAITH.
Lots of accusations have been raised here against me personally, and not against my arguments. Apparently, it is "borderline insulting" to call in another expert, just because I pointed out that I easily recognize my opponents as definitive non-experts.
On the other hand, my oponents are fine with completely ignoring the standard rules of discussion, debate and logic.
Then finally, if I complain too much, then I'm guilty of WP:TLDR.
Don't take me wrong, the two of you might be great guys, good persons. That's not what I'm complaining about.
If such conduct is representative of Wikipedia, then it is a complete catastrophe. It is not a kind and truth-loving community, as it claims to be. Instead, it is an agglomeration of personal interests and biases, and a socio-political consensus of a group of people who thought themselves sufficiently skillful and knowledgable to be able to write an online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia might have became just another big lie. Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't think my allegations are against the two of you. I am complaining about the rules, and the persons at the top of the hierarchy of Wikipedia, who are the makers of those standards.
I'm complaining about the set of rules, standards and customs that are producing the consequences that I'm experiencing and criticising. Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Z80Spectrum - You asked me to comment on all of this so in short:
Wikipedia is what it is and no point fighting it... Your demonstrations need to be made available on a personal page or blog somewhere else. That way they might be added as a weak* but possibly admissible reference, as happens on similar pages about other computers.
This is because they need to be accessible in the future. As you've found out, if they are only on the talk page they can be deleted!
(* - Blogs are usually not considered as good references, but there are exceptions for specialized and demonstrable content, as I think it is the case. Anyway, such decisions can only be made when there's an actual reference to consider)
Hope it helps in some way 4throck (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I know. Perhaps I got a bit surprised about Wikipedia.
Then, I just needed to vent it out.
Could you at least confirm here that you
agree that my computation of the palette is better than the previous data,
and that there is no more accurate data available, by your knowledge.
You could also confirm that you think that my computation is allowed by WP:CALC .
Do you agree with that, or not? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Posted on DRN:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Too bright 'dim' RGB values suddenly – “PAL gamma”?

I am quite worried after 4throck's « PAL gamma approximation » that has set 224 as potential RGB values for the dim colors, lately.


→ MY SUMMARY:

I am not convinced at all from this undocumented and rough method, so I'd like to know more about the applied conversion, in scientific terms hopefully. From what I humbly know as a long-term pixel artist and coder, almost all the related users on the real hardwares and via emulators are pretty fine with the medium 192, even the brighter 205 at times, for at least 14 years…


→ MY QUESTIONS:

  • What are the proofs of this sudden correction?
  • Where is the paper of this possible research?
  • Is your system original or modded?
  • What is your display and which settings?
  • Are you fine with these faulty dim colors?


→ MY DOUBTS:

  • The difference looks too big and new to be true.
  • The dimming looks flawed, not less inaccurate as expected.
  • We won't edit millions of RGB conversions after a one-man decision.
  • I remember my opposite experience here.

--d⠚p⠖l⠃a⠒.fr 02:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

75% voltage (a linear value) corresponds to DN 192 of course, but that value was then PAL encoded and displayed on a CRT. That assumes a non-linear display gamma of 2.4. Today's displays are sRGB with gamma 2.2 (that's the web standard), so we need to change the values for proper display on Wikipedia. That's what I did, I simply gamma corrected the original value. Of course, I might have done a mistake somewhere. Feel free to apply a better correction or change it back, I'm not "territorial" about my contributions.
But one thing is certain, on an sRGB display the correct value won't be 192. Likewise the Spectrum's RGB primaries are BT.601 (PAL) and need to be converted to Rec.709 (sRGB) for accurate display. In practice the difference is minimal (ex: green will be something like 0,255,32 ), but mathematically it's there. So yes, all emulators are wrong unless you connect them to a PAL TV.
The point here is that Wikipedia is a web based, and web colors are sRGB (unless you use images with ICC profiles...)
Hope it helps 4throck (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm replying to here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Ignore this post. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Archive settings

I was going to add archiving to this talk page, but I realised that if I did it would archive most of Z80Spectrum's remaining comments, and as I don't want to be accused of having ulterior motives, I'll wait until the discussion has run it's course. I've added <nowiki></nowiki> tags that can just be removed when done. I also added a header to the Demo scene comment, otherwise that will never be archived when the time comes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Is archiving good or bad, in the sense that I would like, of course, this discussion to remain as visible as possible? Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARCHIVE I prefer Cluebot III, which is the code I've added to the top of the page. Inclusion of the minkeepthreads=3 parameter stipulates that there will always be at least three topics left on the talk page, even if they're eligible for archiving. So - at this time of writing - all threads before Grammar error near start of "ULAplus" section will be archived. Remember that archived comments don't disappear - they can still be seen (and searched) in the archive itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, If I want this issue "decided", I should post it now to WP:DRN, before it is archieved. I think we have enough arguments posted, sufficient for a decision.
However, I'll probably be a bit busy now, but I'll try to go to [WP:DRN] in less than 24 hours. I hope that is OK with you, and that you can postpone the archieving for 24 hours. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to make it clear:
I would like some topics of the talk page to be archived.
The topics that should be archived are:
- Epilepsy?
- Shock Megademo
- Grammar error near start of "ULAplus" section
Everything else should stay on the talk page. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I removed ClueBot III. I'm against adding any bots to this page. The topics should be archived manually. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The removal at [17] looks unsurprising given the WP:FORUM nature of the comments. @Z80Spectrum: the content remains available in the history for you to copy to a more appropriate (non-Wikipedia) location. I see no value in keeping any of the sections above on the talk page and I think they can be safely archived immediately. The section Someone has just deleted all of my suggestions is too rambling to be useful. If there are unresolved issues there a new, less verbose, section should be started. all parties are encouraged to keep discussion tightly-worded and focused on article content. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Z80Spectrum, as I've explained already - the |minkeepthreads=3 setting means that regardless of the age of the threads - and even if they meet archiving criteria - there will always be 3 threads active on the talk page. Also - don't edit war. You've already agreed that you don't understand how archiving works, so please don't mess around with things you don't understand. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Engvar edits

I've reverted your latest edits for the following reasons:

  • WP:Engvar is policy - please read and understand it. Your reversion - and subsequent manual changes - missed some engvar instances
  • There is no preference between scientific notation and ASCII representation, but the article as it stands mixes usage of both styles. My edit consolidated this to a single style of ASCII "x", which is better represented off-wiki such as translations and PDF creation etc. Your reversion obviously undid this and reinstated usage of both ASCII and scientific notation - sometimes in the same sentence.
  • The article itself is not disputed. Your edits on the talk page are disputed.
    • This is the second time the disputed template was added after it was removed by a completely uninvolved editor. Simply adding it again is the first step in edit warring

Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite agree to the simplistic description of the events that you have provided, but I'll skip my side of the story, for brevity. I don't think it matters much.
The only real contention is "x" vs multiplication "×". I'm stronly for multiplication symbol, so if your only complaint is consistency, then I'll change the entire article so that only multiplication symbol is used.
Is that OK? Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I have another un-related proposal. It is about solving our dispute, hopefully, easily. I have posted it on your talk page a few hours ago.
I had this idea: the removed parts of this talk page, which are the object of dispute, can be archived.
I have nothing against archiving that entire computation of mine, and the rest that was removed. Would that be acceptable to you as a resolution of our dispute? Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page as to why I'm against your archiving proposal, and as I make clear above consistency is not my only complaint about the mix of ASCII and scientific notation - the scientific notation character is not a standard ASCII value (215), and outside the usual 32-127 set, which causes issues when transcoding. There are occasions when either scientific notation or indeed any >127 ASCII values should be used, but this isn't one of them as there's an acceptable alternative - "x" (120). Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I now understand that issus with non-ASCII characters are also important to you.
What I don't understand now is this:
The much more popular and important page "ZX Spectrum" also contains non-ASCII multiplication symbol, all over the place.
I also see that you were active on the talk page of "ZX Spectrum".
So, why don't we agree on one standard for both pages, and work towards that goal?
We could ask other editors, on this talk page and on "ZX Spectrum", and see if we can reach some kind of a consensus policy, or we can perhaps agree to abide by majority's decision.
I think that such an agreement would be far better than having the two of us constantly revert and correct each other over minor issues. I don't think that we are in an edit war, perhaps our opinions just happen to be different. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources for INT on vertical sync

I've got a problem: an user with an IP address is now, for the second time, reverting the text for Z80 INT signal on vertical synchronization.

The newest change he did is still wrong (he claims that Spectrum used IM2). IM2 is just an interrupt mode of INT, which can be modified by Z80 software to either IM0, IM1, or IM2.

Unfortunately, I can't find good sources that EXPLICITLY say that the vsync was hooked onto INT. Can someone help me? Obiously, I can't notify the user who uses an IP address.

If someone could find a good source for INT on vsync, it would be great. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Found a source, page 224 of:
11. Smith, Chris (2010). The ZX Spectrum ULA: How to Design a Microcomputer (1st ed.). United Kingdom: ZXDesign Technology and Media. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-95-650710-5.
It's a book, non-free, but hopefully this will be good enough to stop the user. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, made it! Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes/Archive_1&oldid=1223272744"